State v. LittonState v. Litton
S. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Coby R. Litton, appeals from his convictions in the Eaton Municipal Court for domestic violence and endangering children. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On September 30, 2015, a sergeant with the New Paris Police Department filed a complaint charging Litton with domestic violence in violation of
{¶ 3} The matter ultimately proceeded to a one-day bench trial held on January 22, 2016. During trial, the trial court heard testimony from Cynthia Snyder, a social worker with Preble County Job and Family Services, A.L., and Litton, among others. As part of this testimony, Snyder testified that she interviewed A.L. on two occasions, once on September 21, 2015 and again on September 25, 2015. According to Snyder, during both of these interviews, A.L. told her Litton had “spanked” him with a rod, threw him into the wall, and dumped toys over his head after A.L. had “difficulty with his homework.”
{¶ 4} Snyder‘s testimony was similar to A.L.‘s own trial testimony. A.L. testified that Litton got mad and “spanked” him on his buttocks and legs with his hand, a rod, and a fishing pole because he took too long to finish his homework. A.L. also testified Litton then “grabbed me up by my hand and slammed me against the wall” and “threw toys on me.” It is undisputed that the prosecuting attorney did not provide Litton with a recording of the September 21, 2015 interview as part of its responses to Litton‘s discovery requests. Furthermore, when asked why a recording was not provided to the prosecuting attorney,
{¶ 5} On March 7, 2016, the trial court issued a written decision finding Litton guilty as charged. In so holding, the trial court determined that “[A.L.‘s] testimony was consistent with that he told [Snyder] on two occasions, his grandmother, and hospital personnel.” The trial court also stated that “[f]or a child of [A.L.‘s] age to describe how he got those bruises so consistently on many occasions and over a period of several months is compelling and convincing.” Implicit within this holding is the trial court‘s determination that Litton‘s testimony that A.L. may have suffered his injuries as a result of wrecking his bicycle lacked credibility. The same is true regarding Litton‘s claim that A.L.‘s injuries were the result of permissible parental discipline resulting from Litton spanking A.L. once with a wooden spoon.
{¶ 6} On March 21, 2016, two weeks after the trial court issued its decision, Litton filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to
{¶ 7} On April 14, 2016, the trial court issued a decision denying Litton‘s motion for a new trial. In so holding, the trial court stated that it had “listened to all of the evidence and found no other explanation for the bruises and so forth to [A.L.].” The trial court further stated that “[i]t‘s not a personal thing it‘s a matter of what the evidence is and how the evidence was presented that led the [c]ourt to that decision.” After denying Litton‘s motion, the trial court sentenced Litton to serve 90
{¶ 8} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 9} THE STATE COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BY FAILING TO DISCLOSE [A.L.‘s] INITIAL INTERVIEW WITH CYNTHIA SNYDER BEFORE TRIAL.
{¶ 10} In his first assignment of error, Litton argues the state violated
{¶ 11}
{¶ 12} As noted above, prior to trial, it is undisputed that the prosecuting attorney did not provide Litton with a recording of the September 21, 2015 interview between A.L. and Snyder. However, Litton‘s trial counsel explicitly stated that he could not place any blame on the prosecuting attorney for that failure “because apparently, uh, the witness did not tell them” so “I‘m gonna move
{¶ 13} Moreover, as the record reveals, Litton‘s trial counsel made no attempt to ask for a continuance so that he could review the recording of the September 21, 2015 interview even after Snyder offered to provide him with a copy. Instead, albeit over his objection, Litton‘s trial counsel “moved on” and continued his cross-examination regarding A.L.‘s statements during both the September 21, 2015 and September 25, 2015 interviews, statements that, just as the trial court found, remained generally consistent throughout. Specifically, that Litton had caused A.L.‘s injuries by hitting him with various objects multiple times, throwing him into a wall, and dumping toys over his head. Therefore, even if the prosecuting attorney could be said to have willfully violated its duties under
{¶ 14} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 15} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANT‘S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL.
{¶ 16} In his second assignment of error, Litton argues the trial court erred by denying his motion for a new trial raised pursuant to
Standard of Review for Crim.R. 33 Motion for a New Trial
{¶ 17} ”
Crim.R. 33(A)(2): Misconduct of Prosecuting Attorney or Witnesses for the State
{¶ 18} Pursuant to
{¶ 19} Similar to his argument raised in his first assignment of error, Litton claims that both prosecuting attorney and Snyder engaged in misconduct by failing to disclose the existence of a recording of the September 21, 2015 interview between Snyder and A.L. However, as noted above, we find this nondisclosure was something that can be classified as merely inadvertent. Furthermore, even after learning of its existence, Litton‘s trial counsel never requested a continuance to review the recording, nor did he accept Snyder‘s offer to provide him with a copy of the recording. Under these circumstances, we simply cannot say that either the prosecuting attorney or Snyder engaged in
Crim.R. 33(A)(4): Verdict Not Sustained by Sufficient Evidence
{¶ 20} Pursuant to
{¶ 21} The standard of review for a denial of a
{¶ 22} As noted above, Litton was convicted of domestic violence in violation of
{¶ 23} Litton argues there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions because A.L.‘s testimony “is not consistent with the injuries he sustained” and more likely the result of him wrecking his bicycle. However, A.L. specifically testified that the bruising was not caused by him wrecking his bike. Rather, A.L. testified that his injuries occurred after Litton got mad and “spanked” him on his buttocks and legs with his hand, a rod, and a fishing pole because he was taking too long to finish his homework. This included testimony from A.L. that Litton hit him with the rod so hard that “he broke it on my hiney.” A.L. also testified that Litton then “grabbed me up by my hand and slammed me against the wall” and “threw toys on me.” Pictures of A.L.‘s injuries were admitted into evidence showing large, deep colored bruises on his buttocks, legs, arm, and hand, as well as an abrasion on his forehead. This testimony, if believed, coupled with the pictures of A.L.‘s injuries, was more than sufficient to support Litton‘s convictions for domestic violence and endangering children.
{¶ 24} Nevertheless, albeit as part of his third assignment of error, Litton argues his convictions must be reversed because he testified that he merely spanked A.L. one time with a wooden spoon, thus constituting permissible parental discipline. The trial court clearly found Litton‘s claim that he only
{¶ 25} In order to use parental discipline as a defense, the discipline must be both proper and reasonable. State v. Zielinski, 12th Dist. No. CA2010-12-121, 2011-Ohio-6535, ¶ 24, citing State v. Suchomski, 58 Ohio St.3d 74, 75 (1991). Taking A.L.‘s testimony as true, we find nothing about Litton‘s conduct that convinces this court he was engaged in proper and reasonable parental discipline of A.L. Again, according to A.L.‘s testimony, which the trial court found credible, Litton got mad and hit A.L. with his hand, a rod, and a fishing pole before throwing him into a wall and dumping his toys over his head after he failed to complete his homework in a timely fashion. This caused A.L. to suffer bruising, some of which was severe, to his buttocks, legs, arm, and hand, as well as an abrasion on his forehead. Litton‘s reaction to A.L. not completing his homework more quickly was neither proper, nor reasonable. State v. Luke, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-10-26, 2011-Ohio-4330, ¶ 21 (defining “proper” as “suitable or appropriate” and defining “reasonable” as “not extreme or excessive“). Therefore, because there was sufficient evidence to support Litton‘s convictions for domestic violence and endangering children, the trial court did not err by denying his motion for a new trial.
{¶ 26} In light of the foregoing, having found no merit to any of Litton‘s claims herein, Litton‘s second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 27} Assignment of Error No. 3:
{¶ 28} APPELLANT‘S CONVICTIONS FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND ENDANGERING CHILDREN ARE BASED UPON LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE BECAUSE APPELLANT ENGAGED IN REASONABLE AND PROPER PARENTAL DISCIPLINE.
{¶ 29} In his third assignment of error, Litton argues his convictions for domestic violence and endangering child were not supported by sufficient evidence and were otherwise against the manifest weight of the evidence. As we have already determined that there was sufficient evidence to support Litton‘s convictions when reviewing Litton‘s second assignment of error, we will limit our analysis in this assignment of error to whether his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence. After a thorough review of the record, we find that they were not.
{¶ 30} A manifest weight of the evidence challenge examines the “inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence, offered at a trial, to support one side of the issue rather than the other.” State v. Barnett, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-09-177, 2012-Ohio-2372, ¶ 14. To determine whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the reviewing court must look at the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of the witnesses, and determine whether in resolving the conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. State v. Morgan, 12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2013-08-146 and CA2013-08-147, 2014-Ohio-2472, ¶ 34. However, while appellate review includes the responsibility to consider the credibility of witnesses and the weight given to the evidence, these issues are primarily matters for the trier of fact to decide. State v. Barnes, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2010-06-009, 2011-Ohio-5226, ¶ 81. An appellate court will overturn a conviction due to the manifest weight of the evidence only in extraordinary circumstances when the evidence presented at trial weighs heavily in favor of acquittal. State v. Blair, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2014-01-023, 2015-Ohio-818, ¶ 43.
{¶ 31} Litton claims his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence because A.L.‘s testimony was inconsistent and unreliable since it became “more elaborate with every telling.” Litton also claims his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence since there was testimony A.L. may have received some of his bruising from wrecking his bicycle. However, as noted
{¶ 32} Judgment affirmed.
M. POWELL, P.J., and RINGLAND, J., concur.